S. 498A IPC | Courts Must Identify Instances Of Over Implication Of Persons In Cases & Avert Undue Suffering To Them: Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court expressed dismay over the tendency to over-implicate the persons and to present an exaggerated version in Section 498-A IPC domestic cruelty cases.

“We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons.”, the bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar said.

The bench heard a case where the appellant, being the brother-in-law (Jija Ji) of the deceased, was booked along with the deceased's husband and sister-in-law in a domestic cruelty case for allegedly torturing and harassing the deceased in relation to dowry demand.

The appellant was convicted under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of the IPC; however, his sentence was modified in an appeal by the High Court to the period already suffered in imprisonment.

The appellant assailed the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court and took a plea that there was no credible evidence with the prosecution proving the guilt of the appellant because the alleged demand of dowry was made in January 2010 however his marriage with the deceased's sister-in-law was conducted much later in October 2010.

Finding force in the appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar observed as follows:

“It is a fact that despite the general, vague allegation no specific accusation was raised against the appellant. That apart, despite our microscopic examination, we could not find any specific evidence brought out by the prosecution against the appellant herein through anyone of the witnesses. In other words, the fact discernible from the impugned judgment is that none of the prosecution witnesses had specifically deposed against the appellant herein of his having committed any cruelty which will attract the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, against him. There is also no case that no complaints were filed implicating the appellant earlier to the subject FIR.”

The Court also noted that the conviction of the appellant's wife i.e., the deceased's sister-in-law would not be grounds to hold the appellant guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material on record.

“In short, we find that there is no scintilla of evidence against the appellant herein to hold that he has committed the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, even with the aid of Section 34, IPC. Being the husband of the second accused, Savita, who was found guilty by the courts below for the aforesaid offence cannot be a ground to hold the appellant guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material on record.”

In this regard, sustenance was drawn from the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) where the court had flagged concern about the reflection of exaggerated versions of the incidents in the Section 498A complaints and invited the attention of the legislature to bring changes to the provision while taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and public opinion.

More recently, in the case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, the Court raised serious concerns about the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC proceedings against the husband and in-laws by the wife/relatives. Moreover, the Court requested the Parliament to amend the corresponding provision such as Sections 85 and 86 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 to prevent misuse of the provision.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction of the appellant was set aside.

Case Title: Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr., Crl.A. No. 004278 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 842

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Ms. Apurva, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arun Kanwa, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv.